-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
🌱 extend test/framework to collect workload cluster nodes #9416
Conversation
Hi @rvanderp3. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
/label area/testing |
@rvanderp3: The label(s) In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
/area testing |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
All in all lgtm.
We should add a note at https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api/blob/main/docs/book/src/developer/providers/migrations/v1.5-to-v1.6.md to signal this change.
907d8ad
to
029162e
Compare
Thanks for reviewing! I added a note. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/ok-to-test
Will be good to get a dump in the test output to see what this looks like in practice.
8d91fd7
to
70d947f
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is great - thankyou!
/lgtm |
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 88304d6f30e27eec289ec1f2ff7a7e9d5b010f65
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Last nit
/lgtm
Awesome work! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Very nice
Just two nits + #9416 (comment)
70d947f
to
edcd705
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/lgtm
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: c7eb703f645fcf85e1e3fca939444481a813cb80
|
Thank you very much! This will be very useful to debug e2e test issues ;) /lgtm |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: sbueringer The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
@@ -178,7 +184,7 @@ func dumpObject(resource runtime.Object, logPath string) { | |||
namespace := metaObj.GetNamespace() | |||
name := metaObj.GetName() | |||
|
|||
resourceFilePath := filepath.Clean(path.Join(logPath, namespace, kind, name+".yaml")) | |||
resourceFilePath := filepath.Clean(path.Join(logPath, kind, namespace, name+".yaml")) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm just trying to parse the artifacts folder and this change makes it very had:
Before this change:
https://gcsweb.k8s.io/gcs/kubernetes-jenkins/logs/periodic-cluster-api-e2e-release-1-5/1704077878771060736/artifacts/clusters/bootstrap/resources/
Before it was easy to go into a folder for a namespace / test case and go through various resources. Now it's pretty hard because it's always necessary to go up and down two levels. I prefer by far the grouping by namespace and then kind over first kind and then namespace
Can we revert this change?
@killianmuldoon @chrischdi Opinions?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fine to revert - I think you're right that namespace first is maps better onto how we've actually used this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
PR: #9462 (for reference)
What this PR does / why we need it:
Collects node yaml from workload cluster to assist in e2e failure analysis.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #9250